Dropped Fraud case and the school place.

[F i F]

This case against this bird who lied about her place of residence to get her son in good school has been dropped on a technicality.

Anyone who listened to R4 Today might have had boiling wee this morning.

Basically woman claimed on her application that she had lived at her mother's address for 14 years when in fact she had only lived there for four weeks while she was separated from hubby. Since moved back in to the family home.

The interview she gave this morning could have been from a politician, talk about putting a spin on things. Sheesh!

CPS/lawyers have bottled it. It may be that they are correct that the Fraud Act does not cover this adequately.

Setting that technicality aside is this right or wrong? Should the council have taken the action? Is this fair tactics in the getting a good school place game?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/81305...


PS there may be another thread on this hidden away in the multiplicity of forums that is P&P these days, search revealed nothing, says he sadly in warning to the repost police.

[mechsympathy]

I read that this morning, she is very good at spin isn't she. Proclaiming that her innocence is proven rather than the awkward truth that the CPS weren't sure enough that the law would go their way.

[elster]

I don't see how they were going to spin it out into a fraud case.

Why couldn't they just say no.

[F i F]

elster said:

I don't see how they were going to spin it out into a fraud case.

Why couldn't they just say no.

The council representative made the point that if they truly believe somebody has made a "fraudulent" claim or deliberately given false information to gain advantage in a dishonest way, simply to refuse them a place is akin to saying to an apprehended shoplifter, "Just put the goods back on the shelf and it will all be OK, everything will be settled and nothing done wrong"

Of course considering the way our MPs believe that paying back thousands of expenses absolves them of any blame in respect of money, some of which may have also been claimed "fraudulently" or dishonestly, speaks volumes about the depths to which this country has sunk.

[zcacogp]

article said:

Mrs Patel said she was relieved and the decision not to launch a "disproportionate" action against her showed she was innocent.

But she admitted that she had told the council she had lived at her mother's address for 14 years, when in fact she had only stayed there for four weeks.

She told the BBC she had been "under stress" at the time she filled in the school application form ... She added: "I still don't feel I have done anything wrong.

Yes, this did make my wee boil. Comments? She's clearly a lying cow, and using the council's reluctance to mis-use the law to proclaim her innocence.

It's rare I will take the side of any council as my opinion of them is low at the best of times, but in this case I will. The woman's guilt is clear, and the comments above show her true character.


Oli.

[elster]

F i F said:

elster said:

I don't see how they were going to spin it out into a fraud case.

Why couldn't they just say no.

The council representative made the point that if they truly believe somebody has made a "fraudulent" claim or deliberately given false information to gain advantage in a dishonest way, simply to refuse them a place is akin to saying to an apprehended shoplifter, "Just put the goods back on the shelf and it will all be OK, everything will be settled and nothing done wrong"

Of course considering the way our MPs believe that paying back thousands of expenses absolves them of any blame in respect of money, some of which may have also been claimed "fraudulently" or dishonestly, speaks volumes about the depths to which this country has sunk.

Well no one would prosecute someone who had lied on their CV.

If found out before the job starts you would just be told no. Surely this is the same, as it is just an application.

[Eric Mc]

They wanted to make an example of her.

In reality, all they had to do was refuse her application on the basis that there were inaccuracies in what she was saying.

Fraud is a financial crime and demands an intent to deprive someone or some organistation of income. I cannot see how this case could have been successfully prosecuted under the restricted legal definition of "fraud".

She broke a rule, not a law. There was no "criminal" case to answer.

What this council now want is for a new law to criminalise incorrect statements on application forms.

I would be VERY worried about such a development.

Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 3rd July 10:02

[Neil_H]

Dishonest certainly, but it's hardly the crime of the century is it? I don't think it warrants court time, or money, frankly.

[SimonD]

Eric Mc said:

They wanted to make an example of her.

In reality, all they had to do was refuse her application on the basis that there were inaccuracies in what she was saying.

Fraud is a financial crime and demands an intent to deprive someone or some organistation of income. I cannot see how this case could have been successfully prosecuted under the restricted legal definition of "fraud".

She broke a rule, not a law. There was no "criminal" case to answer.

What this council now want is for a new law to criminalise incorrect statements on application forms.

I would be VERY worried about such a development.

Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 3rd July 10:02

The 'intent to deprive' in this case was the intention to deprive another deserving and local child a place at that school. Vacuous cow.

[anonymous-user]

Must be time for all the faith schools to prosecute those they think aren't true believers in whatever form of woo-woo their particular school demands.

[Monki]

While I disagree with what she did, is it so bad to want a decent education for your child? And is it not the education systems fault for failing to provide a choice of decent schools?

Edited by Monki on Friday 3rd July 13:15

[shoggoth1]

Monki said:

While I disagree with what she did, is it so bad to want a decent education for your child? And is it not the education systems fault for failing to provide a choice of decent schools?

Edited by Monki on Friday 3rd July 13:15

No, but she would be depriving someone with a legitimate claim a place.

[Fittster]

Monki said:

While I disagree with what she did, is it so bad to want a decent education for your child? And is it not the education systems fault for failing to provide a choice of decent schools?

Some schools will always be more decent than others.

[F i F]

elster said:

F i F said:

elster said:

I don't see how they were going to spin it out into a fraud case.

Why couldn't they just say no.

The council representative made the point that if they truly believe somebody has made a "fraudulent" claim or deliberately given false information to gain advantage in a dishonest way, simply to refuse them a place is akin to saying to an apprehended shoplifter, "Just put the goods back on the shelf and it will all be OK, everything will be settled and nothing done wrong"

Of course considering the way our MPs believe that paying back thousands of expenses absolves them of any blame in respect of money, some of which may have also been claimed "fraudulently" or dishonestly, speaks volumes about the depths to which this country has sunk.

Well no one would prosecute someone who had lied on their CV.

If found out before the job starts you would just be told no. Surely this is the same, as it is just an application.

Actually I'd argue that you've given a bad example, which perversely is a good example when considering the topic.

If somebody lied on a CV or a job application it could be argued that they had obtained pecuniary advantage which is an offence under s16 Theft Act iirc. So yes they could be prosecuted as I see it.

Clearly this woman has not gained pecuniary advantage but I genuinely believe that she may have committed fraud based on the reporting. The problem is that as I understand it there is no legal definition of fraud. Most actions referred to as fraud are dealt with and prosecuted under various bits of Theft Acts.

From t'web, Birmingham Uni
"Generally, the term is used to describe such acts as deception, bribery, forgery, extortion, corruption, theft, conspiracy, embezzlement, misappropriation, false representation, concealment of material facts and collusion. For practical purposes fraud may be defined as the use of deception with the intention of obtaining an advantage, avoiding an obligation or causing loss to another party."

Also from a Council site.
"The intentional distortion of financial statements or other records by persons internal or external to the Council which is carried out to conceal the misappropriation of assets and funds for personal or other gain."

Two things that I found disturbing on this morning's interview. 1) As somebody mentioned above it was the spin:- paraphrasing "The council have decided not to prosecute me on a technicality therefore that proves I am completely innocent" hmmmm yeah right, and 2) The very slick way that information was presented without a tremor or hesitation.

It may be that the woman was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and it may be that she was lying in either case she appears very accomplished at it.

For the record I didn't believe a word she said, but that is purely my personal opinion no more that that and counts for nothing in the overall scheme of things and should not be taken as any allegation of truth or not re the circumstances surrounding.

Edited by F i F on Friday 3rd July 15:08

[The Contrarian]

Ingredients for fraud:

Fraud
(1)A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).
(2)The sections are—
(a)section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b)section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c)section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).
(3)A person who is guilty of fraud is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).
(4)Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.


Fraud by false representation
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2)A representation is false if—
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
(a)the person making the representation, or
(b)any other person.
(4)A representation may be express or implied.
(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention)



I'd say it hinges on what they mean in making a 'gain' or to cause a 'loss' for another.

[elster]

F i F said:

Actually I'd argue that you've given a bad example, which perversely is a good example when considering the topic.

If somebody lied on a CV or a job application it could be argued that they had obtained pecuniary advantage which is an offence under s16 Theft Act iirc. So yes they could be prosecuted as I see it.

Clearly this woman has not gained pecuniary advantage but I genuinely believe that she may have committed fraud based on the reporting. The problem is that as I understand it there is no legal definition of fraud. Most actions referred to as fraud are dealt with and prosecuted under various bits of Theft Acts.

From t'web, Birmingham Uni
"Generally, the term is used to describe such acts as deception, bribery, forgery, extortion, corruption, theft, conspiracy, embezzlement, misappropriation, false representation, concealment of material facts and collusion. For practical purposes fraud may be defined as the use of deception with the intention of obtaining an advantage, avoiding an obligation or causing loss to another party."

Also from a Council site.
"The intentional distortion of financial statements or other records by persons internal or external to the Council which is carried out to conceal the misappropriation of assets and funds for personal or other gain."

Two things that I found disturbing on this morning's interview. 1) As somebody mentioned above it was the spin:- paraphrasing "The council have decided not to prosecute me on a technicality therefore that proves I am completely innocent" hmmmm yeah right, and 2) The very slick way that information was presented without a tremor or hesitation.

It may be that the woman was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and it may be that she was lying in either case she appears very accomplished at it.

For the record I didn't believe a word she said, but that is purely my personal opinion no more that that and counts for nothing in the overall scheme of things and should not be taken as any allegation of truth or not re the circumstances surrounding.

Edited by F i F on Friday 3rd July 15:08

If someone lied on the CV and it came out afterwards it would be, not before the job has been given.

I doubt she was telling the truth.

[Pickled Piper]

Eric Mc said:

They wanted to make an example of her.

In reality, all they had to do was refuse her application on the basis that there were inaccuracies in what she was saying.

Fraud is a financial crime and demands an intent to deprive someone or some organistation of income. I cannot see how this case could have been successfully prosecuted under the restricted legal definition of "fraud".

She broke a rule, not a law. There was no "criminal" case to answer.

What this council now want is for a new law to criminalise incorrect statements on application forms.

I would be VERY worried about such a development.

Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 3rd July 10:02

As above.

I'm not condoning it but it's hardly the crime of the century. She was motivated by wanting to get her sprog into a good school. It happens a lot all round the Country.

Her apparent indignation at getting caught makes it difficult to warm to her.

I'd rather the authorities spent money on prosecuting those guilty of benefit fraud.

pp

[tinman0]

SimonD said:

The 'intent to deprive' in this case was the intention to deprive another deserving and local child a place at that school. Vacuous cow.

That may be so, but the penalty should not be a criminal prosecution. Anyone who thinks a criminal investigation for such a thing needs their head read. But then this is the warped UK where leaving a bin out on the wrong day has a higher fine than a shoplifter would get.

[Deva Link]

tinman0 said:

SimonD said:

The 'intent to deprive' in this case was the intention to deprive another deserving and local child a place at that school. Vacuous cow.

That may be so, but the penalty should not be a criminal prosecution. Anyone who thinks a criminal investigation for such a thing needs their head read. But then this is the warped UK where leaving a bin out on the wrong day has a higher fine than a shoplifter would get.

You've obviously never failed to get your kids into the local school that you (and they) wanted them to go to.

When you're in that situation, this is an absolutely *huge* issue. People feel they've failed their kids if they don't get them into the right school.

[fluffnik]

The school "choice" system deserves to have the piss ripped out of it, anything else is bad parenting...